Regarding Haven Shoemaker's 'Other Voices' article of Nov. 16, Shoemaker uses phrases like "sins like the devil," "the religion of urban atheists," "evil" and "apocalypse" and he calls Al Gore "The Rev. Gore."

Who is Shoemaker trying to reach?

He acts as if a Nobel Prize is won with a coin flip. It is an international award with a large cash award attached, which Gore gave to research for a solution to global warming. That puts him $250,000 ahead of most of us who believe in a cause.

Of course all of these national and international experts must be wrong because Shoemaker knows a fellow Carroll County mayor who disagrees with Gore.

So the score must be Carroll County mayors 1; international experts 0.

Also he uses the word liberal is an adjective to describe Robert Samuelson. Yet Michael Crichton is just described as "author."

I've lived in Carroll County over 50 years. I am a Christian. I believe in environmentalism. I am not an "urban atheist."

I believe it is our duty to our grandchildren, our country and to our God not to let this beautiful earth He gave us go down the tubes so that we can continue to make a buck or not pay taxes. Saying that "Any action we take that stifles economic progress decreases our chances of finding solutions" sounds like the earth can't be saved unless we make money.

Gore is not the hypocrite. He's the guy who had the election stolen from him in 2000. And now it seems certain people want to steal his Nobel Prize too.

Global warming is not an opinion. It is a fact. Closing your eyes won't make it go away. Making fun of Gore won't make it go away. I'm not a preacher, but I know you can't worship God and money too.

My mom still lives in the area so I try to keep up on what used to be a conservative bastion in Maryland. Maybe not any more.

Here is a link to the offending column Mr. Rudnick objected to. It appears from his response, that Mr. Rudnick has bought Owl Gore's hype and has annointed Gore himself as the high priest of Gaian goodness and glory.

All one has to do is read Mr Rudnick’s response to easily conclude that the man 1) doesn’t have a clue about science, 2) doesn’t have a clue about the fine art of argument, and 3) really should be careful around electricity.

I don’t doubt climate change. After all the planet has been a molten ball of lava and a totally frozen ball of ice and snow. Both conditions were the result of natural processes long before the first man showed his face.

3
posted on 11/25/2007 6:12:18 AM PST
by cripplecreek
(Only one consistent conservative in this race and his name is Hunter.)

So true. The “Peace” Prize has become an anti-American award. The peaceful Arafat won for his humanitarian dealings with Israel. And the peaceful Gorbachov won for bringing about the end of the cold war (not Reagan, not Thatcher, not Pope John Paul).

Well then, explain this FACT... the global temperature record has been showing a cooling trend since 1998. Cooling is the opposite of warming.

And explain this fact... with the corrected GISS data this August, the U.S. temperature record now shows that out of the 11 hottest years in the U.S., 7 of those years occurred before 1955. Explain that!

As the evidence mounts and the opposition grows among world scientists to global warming as a man made phenomenon, the zealots that have bought in to the Algore religion grow ever more desperate to force their deeply flawed agenda upon us.

You can google the evidence against man made global warming all day long...if you want to, or you can just continue to take the Goracle on blind faith.

“a large cash award attached, which Gore gave to research for a solution to global warming. That puts him $250,000 ahead of most of us who believe in a cause.”
Didn’t I read that oGre gave the money to a company that he has an ownership interest in?

You can’t use candles. They give off heat which also contributes to global warming. Same applies to cooking fires so figure on eating everything raw. Feel free to enter your own restrictions for saving the planet while riding it of us selfish humans. (Sarc)

“There are ominous signs that the Earths weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production  with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas  parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia  where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree  a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.”

If you're going to buy "snowball earth" for a dime, I don't know why you won't buy the rest of the package, which includes man-caused global warming. It's all the same people doing the same science. I'm far from calling it fraud or anything like that, but I do wonder about it.

It's interesting that there was a wave of pomo "sociology of science" in the 80's and 90's which outraged scientists by seeming to call into question the whole idea of objective scientific truth. I read a number of these studies, and the one thing you can't deny is that science IS a social activity. Now, it's moved from the arena of the academy to the international political stage. Where careers were once on the line, now it's the political and economic future of nations. With stakes so high, is it even possible to regard this as objective science?

"We must deal with climate change now! We simply cannot afford to gamble...by ignoring it. We cannot risk inaction. Those scientists who say we are merely entering a period of climatic instability are acting irresponsibly. the indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." - 1978, Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, page 237

Sounds familiar, same tune, different verse.

24
posted on 11/25/2007 12:31:20 PM PST
by PeaceBeWithYou
(De Oppresso Liber! (50 million and counting in Afganistan and Iraq))

First off, for temperature comparisons to be accurate, the recording devices would have to be placed evenly throughout the world, and would have to have been that way for the entire period of time that these ‘doomers’ use to make that claim.

Unfortunately, it isn’t that way.

Where I stand at this moment, used to be called ‘the dustbowl’. There were no crops growing. Now the entire midwest is one of the largest grain and corn producing regions in the US.

Way before that, it was the bottom of an ocean.

The Antartic used to be a tropical region, and is full of lakes and rivers.

Glaciers used to cover the northern United States, and most of Canada.

The elements that cause mass temperature change are CLOUDS, WATER VAPOR, axis of inclination of the rotation of the Earth, the output of the sun, variations in sunspot activity, and the position of the solar system in relation to the plane of the galaxy.

If this author of this article can ‘change’ any of those variables, then I’m on his side.

When they say 60% chance of rain, that means that when the temperature, humidity, etc. were exactly like they are now, 60% of the time it rained, 40% it didn’t.

If you ask them WHY?, you will get this answer.

They have no idea.

We consider ourself very smart, and in control of our environment. Yet....

We know there is gravity, yet we don’t know ‘how’ it really works.

We know there is magnetism, yet we don’t know ‘how’ it really works.

(Both of these are forces that can exhibit a pull or push on another object without making contact. Yet we insist that ‘telekinetics’ doesn’t exist.)

We thought lightning came from clouds and hit the Earth.
It’s not true. We are just starting to educate the public on the fact that lightning also goes on between the upper atmosphere and the edge of space.

We were taught that the continent are on these tectonic plates that move around and bang into each other, and that is what caused mountain ranges.

Absolutely not true. For it to be true, there would have to be huge gaps between the plates so they could move. In actuality the Earth is growing in size. Just use Google Earth and you can see the ‘stretch’ marks on the ocean floor. If you remove the vast areas of ocean floor you would notice that the continents will fit back together as one solid piece. That is why dinosaurs and other extremely large animals were able to exist, and pterodactyls fly, is because the Earth was smaller, and had less ‘gravity’.

The Earth is round. No it’s not. It is pumpkin shaped. It used to be more pear-shaped. It actually changes shape with the pull of gravity from the orbit of the moon. The entire surface of the Earth rises and falls, in a sense, as the moon makes it’s orbit.

The sea level is rising. Well, depends on where you check and how. On some continents it is rising on one coast, while getting lower on others. Measurement is difficult because of the tides. When the tide comes in, the beach actually rises, and conversely, when it goes out, the beach falls.

We don’t really know what the core of the Earth is made of, or how it works. A large amount of the Earth’s heat comes not from the Sun, but from the core.

What do we really know about the universe and how it works?
Very little.

He acts as if a Nobel Prize is won with a coin flip. It is an international award with a large cash award attached, which Gore gave to research for a solution to global warming. That puts him $250,000 ahead of most of us who believe in a cause.

It's probably a foundation HE controls, so he isn't ceding control of the money, but appearing to 'give' it for publicity and tax purposes.

"Saying that "Any action we take that stifles economic progress decreases our chances of finding solutions" sounds like the earth can't be saved unless we make money."

Actually, Monsieur Rudnick, this is true. There are now so many people on the earth that, without continuing the advance of technology, our own personal waste would soon cause widespread death and destruction on a scale that the survivors would be unable to clean up. Our communities are not suited for farm life without cars. We can't just stop. We have to keep working, keep generating development monies, and keep developing solutions.

Fortunately, the typical pattern of technological development is that technology grows smaller as it grows more powerful and less costly. So take heart.

I dont doubt climate change. After all the planet has been a molten ball of lava and a totally frozen ball of ice and snow. Both conditions were the result of natural processes long before the first man showed his face.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.